Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

trawg writes "Valve has joined the list of companies that have altered their terms and conditions to prevent users from filing a class action suit. Their official statement says that such claims 'impose unnecessary expense and delay' and are 'designed to benefit the class action lawyers.' In its stead, they've added a new arbitration process, in which Valve will reimburse costs (under certain circumstances) when dispute resolution can't be solved through their normal support process."

Unfortunately, it's not just an end-run around the courts. The courts said "Go ahead, run around us." Specifically, The Supreme Court decided companies may enforce binding arbitration in service agreement contract: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/banking/2011/05/us-supreme-court-okays-binding-arbitration-clauses-prohibiting-consumers-from-joining-class-actions.html

Working link [typepad.com]. It's worth reading the rendered opinion of the court here. AT&T was providing these arbitration rules:

In the event the parties proceed to arbitration, the agreement specifies that AT&T must pay all costs for nonfrivolous claims; that arbitration must take place in the county in which the customer is billed; that, for claims of $10,000 or less, the customer may choose whether the arbitration proceeds in person, by telephone, or based only on submissions; that either party may bring a claim in small claims court in lieu of arbitration; and that the arbitrator may award any form of individual relief, including injunctions and presumably punitive damages. The agreement, more over, denies AT&T any ability to seek reimbursement of its attorney’s fees, and, in the event that a customer receives an arbitration award greater than AT&T’s last written settlement offer, requires AT&T to pay a $7,500 minimum recovery and twice the amount of the claimant’s attorney’s fees.

To anyone who thinks there exists a class action lawsuit that is going to provide more compelling terms for AT&T to fix a customer issue than this, I'd say nonsense. I have a small pile of "won" class action suits, where I got $20 to $50 for abusive behavior that cost me far more than that, years after it was irrelevant. In each and every case, I would have preferred swift abritration over the option to sue if the option were available. That's the point the SCOTUS was trying to make here--that had a class action suit proceeded, people would have been far less likely to get satisfaction.

The idea of a class-action lawsuit is ridiculous, unsatisfying nonsense perpetuated by the lawyers who profit from them. If companies want to push for abritration instead, the right response isn't to say "no, we want the right to be screwed over by our lawyers". What saavy people should be thinking about is doing the same thing--punishing companies on a large scale for their mistakes--via large-scale, coordinated abitration. I'm far more confident that crowdsourcing abitration will provide a useful benefit to consumers than any of the broken legal processes for suing companies we have now.

The idea of a class-action lawsuit is ridiculous, unsatisfying nonsense perpetuated by the lawyers who profit from them.

They can be completely legitimate.

Imagine an electric company that overcharges all its customers $10. Now each customer in theory could sue them in small claims to win your $10 but it's probably not worth their time, which means the company would make millions by doing that. What prevents them from just doing that regularly is the risk that somebody will notice the pattern and sue them in a class action all at once rather than each individual having to try to recover their $10 on their own.

Having said that, the contract was a "Contract of Adhesion", where basically one party has no choice, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contracts_of_adhesion. Add to that the fact that some say that EULAs are contracts of adhesion, and we're (well, the yanks are, I'm not) in a murky middle ground here.

Really? Did you sign it? Did you get it notarised? Did you understand every word of legalese used? Did you agree to forfeit statutory rights (that can't be forfeited) like "you agree this bullshit can be changed at any time at our whim when it benefits one party over another"?

Or did you click through the unenforceable crap just so you could use what you paid for?

This depends on the country in question and how far it allows such contracts to go. In USA, EULA of this kind has been legally enforced with great degree of success in courts. It had a bit less of luck in various European countries, and even less success in the rest of the world where companies don't even bother trying to enforce it knowing that such action would be smashed by local law.

Your link refers to a contract. At least where I live, an EULA is not a contract.So that precedent isn't necessarily relevant. We may have to wait until something actually hits the courts. And the appeals court. And the SCOTUS.

I know it will sound trollish, but this is for reasons like this one that I don't think I will ever live or make business in the US (unless I have a big legal department one day). In France, you can accept EULA knowing that some legal rights are not circumventable. I can buy stuff online and click "accept", I know that I have 3 (or 5, can't remember) days to cancel the order.

Living in a country where a single click or the buy of a DVD or a hardware device can void your democratically decided rights is really dangerous.

I also agree with these statements. The thing that makes me shake my head is these arbitrators are the same thing banks use to royally screw customers here in the USA. They are never impartial and have only 1 goal, to save the company that hired them as much money as possible.

I also agree with these statements. The thing that makes me shake my head is these arbitrators are the same thing banks use to royally screw customers here in the USA. They are never impartial and have only 1 goal, to save the company that hired them as much money as possible.

I just ditched my bank for a credit union because they sent me a note saying I had to agree to arbitration.

I, and many actual lawyers, don't think that they can. These clauses *probably* will not stand up in court, at least against a legitimate grievance. It may work, either directly or indirectly, to stop money-grab class actions, but it may not work if there's a real case.

I am told (IANAL, remember?) that it is already unenforceable in the EU, and that several states in the US are considering making it unenforceable as well.

But I'm pretty sure that in the US there was a SCOTUS decision specifically allowing this. It's possible that that only applies to 'real' contracts though, and EULA's may or may not be real contracts (IMHO, IANAL) due to the lack of negotiation and the relative positions of the two parties.

We have those judges in the USA as well, and they're mentioned elsewhere in the thread. They preside over special courts called 'Small Claims Courts'. Exact verbage may vary by state, as does the exact rules and limits on awards. In general, though, $5k is a good rule of thumb and in most cases it's actually illegal(or greatly frowned upon) to bring legal representation(it's considered unfair to the other side). A business may send a representative, but it's supposed to be somebody in charge, such as th

EU legislators take a very dim view on companies that take try to circumvent standing laws.
But bear in mind that class action suits are not common in the EU. You may appear as co-plaintiff and that's it. If a company royally screws up then it will be dealt with by state watchdogs of which there are a couple of kennels kept around.

EULAs are unenforcable in the EU if they're for a packaged product you bought in a store. If you buy something online on Steam, where you only "subscribe" to an online service, they are part of the contract and very much enforceable.

However, we don't really have class action lawsuits here, or punitive damages...

I'm not sure about EULA's but it has been specifically allowed by the supreme court in contracts. Whether the former count as much as the latter is a matter of contention.

It was only the right to band together in a class-action, it doesn't affect your rights to sue as an individual, and some companies (Sony) give you the option to opt-out of this clause, if you write to them directly to do so.

No need to sue them. Provisions contradicting the EU law are simply considered to be null and void. Some contracts/EULAs just add "unless not permitted by your local/applicable law" or something to that effect just to let people know that they should check

Exactly.
Which is why all contracts have a severability clause in it so if any portion of the contract is legally null and void the rest of the contract isn't.
A EULA isn't even a contract. If you'd print it it might serve a purpose as toilet paper. But there are better ways to wipe your arse.

Even if the lawyers are the only ones that walk away rich, the defendant is still going to feel the sting.

Lawsuits aren't about winning money (though that's often a motivating factor for the plaintiff); the threat of a potential lawsuit may be the only thing keeping a company in check. And when that company deals in transactions with tiny individual costs, where no rational person would file an individual lawsuit over it, a class action lawsuit is the only way to give the threat teeth.

Well, that works great for the one, two, or twenty dudes who actually do it, but a large corporation (Sony, MS, etc) will just laugh as they write off a check and continue doing whatever it was they were doing. Small claims court isn't a deterrent.

$large_company "accidentally" overcharges its customers $0.50 per month. Joe Blow sits there and calculates that, hey, his widget bill this month was $65.63, and it should have been $65.13. Joe Blow then goes and checks last months bills, same deal; he goes online and the oldest bills he can see online are 2 years old, and he's been charged this $0.50 every month for at least the last 2 years. Joe Blow's lost at least $12 dollars to this.

Joe Blow signed away his arbitration rights, so he takes $large_company to small claims court. $large_company says, "Oh, dear me, terribly sorry. Here's $50." and they flip a switch on Joe's account so that he alone won't get charged the $0.50 in the future.

Of course, amongst all its 10 million customers, $large_company has stolen $120 million in the last two years alone because of this $0.50 cent "accident," and because there was no big class action suit and no publicity they just continue on stealing from their customers because even if someone notices, what are the chances they'll care enough to actually go through the hassle of small claims court?

Why don't we just start advocating small claims cases en masse? This shifts the tables in favor of the consumer immensely. There are no lawyers to get rich and they are extremely expensive to fight (rather than just settle). You can't get much more punative than that, and the claimant likely gets something out of the deal.

Class actions deal with cases that fall in the grey area where the harm done is too low to justify the expense of going to small claims.

Don't forget it *punishes* the company, even if people don't get a dime. In fact for some things like pollution I'd rather they just take the award money and burn it, thereby increasing the value of everyone's money equally.

> But at the same time they are absolutely correct, class action seldom really benefits anyone but the law firms.

Directly? Yes. Indirectly? Well... Perhaps not.

Class action suits are much more about seeking _punishment_ than compensation. That's why companies hate them and want to preclude them with clauses like these. Sure every member of the class might only get, say 20% returned, but the company pays out 200%. Moreover, it's quite a lot easier to join the class than it is to file suit or enter arbitration on your own. So they maybe give full 100% compensation (+ maybe 50% in court/arbitration costs) to 10% of the customers and it's a "win-win". But really it gives them a much wider margin in which to screw the end user because it basically guarantees that potential costs will not exceed the profits from doing so (this being especially true for software companies where the cost per person is basically zero so _if_ they have to return your payment it's just a wash). While the law firm may take a huge and unfair cut, ideally that money is being pulled from a gaping wound in the company, in a way they hope to avoid.

I don't know about US law, but in my local law it is impossible for any kind of contract to remove legal rights like this.Ofcourse, this is assuming a EULA is considered a legal document at all, which apparently rarely holds up in court in my country.

But the laws in many countries in the world do not allow you to forfeit your legal rights by contract. Here, for example, a contract's clausal that forbids you from suing a person or a company in any way is null and void.

That is why this doesn't really bug me, because I've seen time and time again what you "get" with a class action. YOU, the person that was actually wronged, gets a fucking coupon, while the lawyer gets a new house in the Cayman islands to go with the pile of money in the bank!

Its not like they are saying you can't sue valve, and its not like there aren't plenty of lawyers that would take on a company like Valve on a contingency basis, so its not like its gonna affect John Q Average. The only ones this "hurt

Even if you signed that EULA with your own blood it wouldn't be binding. Who makes you think that? Valve can't change the laws of this country and a contract(even if a EULA were one) can't be illegal.
Unalienable means you can't sell, be stripped, mugged, robbed, forbidden or sign over your rights as a citizen or a human being.
Unless you are a convicted felon, not quite the right type or not rich enough, that is.

They are absolutely correct, though. Nobody wins in class action suits except the lawyers. They are designed to be penal measures against a company where the people who had the problem with the company get nearly nothing in return, and the lawyers' "fee" is 90% of the payout. If it were a GIGNORMOUS company like Microsoft or Google, where you know they already have a fleet of lawyers and tons of money to blow, then this would be a scam, but as it is Valve is not a huge company outside their popularity.

BS. Valve is just proving they're as evil as anyone else. Fast downloads of games does not grant them a holy indulgence.

As far as arbitration goes, arbitration _always_ means that the rich side of a dispute wins. In normal suits the the rich side usually wins but there remains a chance to have actual justice. What matters in arbitration are the clauses that say what happens if either side disagrees with a ruling, and they usually say something like redo the arbitration with expenses split evenly, or the person disagreeing with the output pays for the new arbitration, etc.

How is this better than class action lawsuits, which from my experience has the lawyers sue a company I do/did business with, end up with a settlement where the lawyers get $10 per person and I get $1 for the company's supposed screwing me illegaly for $10?

I'd almost rather just be screwed for the $10, because I felt it was worth it at the time. Companies deserver their profits if they're good enough, and profits on computer stuff is razor thin as is, even with the occasional bit of price fixing(the normal

How is this better than class action lawsuits, which from my experience has the lawyers sue a company I do/did business with, end up with a settlement where the lawyers get $10 per person and I get $1 for the company's supposed screwing me illegaly for $10?

Class action lawsuits are clearly not so you can make a lot of money. I'd say they're more for teaching the company a lesson. And frankly, I would find it absolutely idiotic if a mere EULA was able to take that right away.

Why go through the trouble of a whole lawsuit to benefit a lawyer? The lawyer is using you in those suits, and it doesn't benefit anyone but them.

Valve is not some huge conglomerate with billions to spend, and an average max product price of $50-60(which mostly goes to the developers and their studios). Why would you want to take their money and put it in the pockets of some weasley fucker who just wants to use your problem to pay off his house? Isn't that just going to stifle advancement by Valve and Steam

The lawyer is using you in those suits, and it doesn't benefit anyone but them.

Because, as said in other comments, not very many people will be willing to go to even small claims court to sue for small damages. This allows a company to rip many of its customers off with little or no repercussions. It's not really about the money.

Why would you want to take their money and put it in the pockets of some weasley fucker who just wants to use your problem to pay off his house?

You hate lawyers so class action lawsuits shouldn't be allowed? I don't understand this mentality at all. If the company was the one who ripped me off, I'd rather have the money be in the hands of the "weasely fucker" than the company.

This allows a company to rip many of its customers off with little or no repercussions. It's not really about the money.

I suppose at some future time if Steam did decide ripping people off was in their best interest it could, at least briefly. However I think Steam at present is smart enough not to do so.

With the disaster that was the RAGE release, a lot of people had a non-working product in their library. Some were willing to wait out driver releases and some just wanted their money back. From everything I read on the forums, it sounded like people were quite easily able to get refunded for their purchases (I'm assuming the game is somehow removed from their library, at least that's how it worked when I asked for a refund from Impulse). I think in most cases, Steam is willing to work with users.

Perhaps in some hypothetical future Steam will turn to the dark side and this will matter, but it doesn't seem likely.

Yeah, and how many people are going to do that when the damages are small? Most likely, not very many. Which means the company can pretty much do whatever they please.

Besides, if I want to enter a class action lawsuit, that's my choice. If I want to risk getting less money than I lost from getting ripped off, that is, again, my choice. I don't see why people want to remove that choice from individuals just because they hate lawyers.

I would disagree with you. I recently got an email from a random lawyer informing me that I was part of a class action lawsuit against netflix, and that the outcome was this:

Lawyers will get $220 million to cover their costsNetflix will pay $3 million towards a non profitI will get no money

Take your sides, but this just sounds like a money grab/extortion on the part of the Lawyers, with no benefit whatsoever to the consumer. Supposedly I have two free $5 off vouchers with ticketmaster from a similar settlement. I mean seriously, what the fuck? The only people who benefit from these lawsuits are the lawyers, and I think that's what Valve is trying to avoid. They're a ripe target for this sort of thing, especially in light of the shakedowns that ticketmaster.com and netflix.com have gotten in recent years (probably Sony too)

So because lawyers get a big share, companies can effectively negate any and all possible class action lawsuits and still appear moral?

The point of class actions lawsuits is to get something done about egregious behavior that can not be solved via individual suits in small claims court. It's not about getting rich, it's about punitive action, making sure the company changes their behavior.

The ethical problem of this, and the reason why this doesn't exist in most of Europe is that plaintiff should always be the main target of any money received. There is also issue with entire concept of civil law aiming for "punishment" over "righting the wrong", which is deeply unethical in itself.

Properly done class action lawsuit should severely cap lawyer fees and ensure that majority of settlement goes towards paying those who were hurt by the actions for which company was sued successfully. Unfortunate

It may not be egregious when applied to a single consumer. However it can become egregious when it is applied to a large fraction of consumers. For example, if they failed to deliver the product as advertised to one person and refuse to compensate then that's a small claims court issue. But if they do the same thing to one hundred thousand customers then that is egregious.

An example somewhat recently were video monitor manufacturers who were advertising the size of the viewing area in a deceptive manner.

No its because the "victims" get NOTHING, nothing at all, understand? If you rip me off for $50 then WTF am I supposed to do with a $10 off coupon towards my next purchase FROM YOU?

The problem with class actions is the victims don't ever get jack shit while the lawyers make it like fucking robber barons. Frankly you'd be better off getting a lawyer on a contingency basis or hell, even taking them to small claims court as at least there you will get more than a fucking coupon!

It's also worth noting that arbitration clauses not infrequently make it so the corporation decides who the arbiter is. And yes, they tend to choose based on the odds of winning their case. Some courts have been ruling those clauses to be unconscionable though, which renders them null and void depending on where you live.

According to the post in my RSS reader, they are also allowing small claims court, which is probably the appropriate venue for most disputes about video games. My account is pretty big (between one and two hundred games) but i still wouldn't expect it to be worth more than a couple of thousands dollars. Not with going to a jury trial over. I haven't read the full text of the agreement, though.

I'd mostly be concerned if Valve fucks something something so badly that the damage is much greater than the value of the account itself. In a catastrophic situation like that, a class action might be called for.

Allowing? ALLOWING?
Valve is not in the position to allow or deny anything. State and federal law may allow small claims. State and federal law allow and deny stuff. Valve "licenses" stuff under state and federal law. They have some wiggle room within their contracts(which a EULA is not) and that's about it.

and indeed, if Valve ever cut off access to the games I've purchased from them, I'll be pursuing them in small claims court for the replacement cost of those games.

That may well be less than I paid for them (or, for games I bought in a sale, maybe more) but I'll be seeking restitution not punishment.

Class action lawsuits have always struck me as being very wrongly biased towards the lawyers. I suspect their intent is to allow people to pool resources to bring a case, but the outcome seems to generally be extremely rich lawyers.

Do they even need to force arbitration? When has one of Valve's products killed someone?
Or left them crippled?
Or changed their lives so seriously that they actually NEEDED to sue Valve for damages?

The EULA already pretty much says that this software is sold as-is and is not fit for a particular purpose, and indemnifies them against loss of data on your hard drive, and any responsibility is yours.

If the product doesn't do what you would expect, they can always just give you a refund, and kick your butt o

None of those three things really need to happen. You do not need to have a "need" to sue someone in order to be able to file a lawsuit. Valve is perfectly capable of ripping people off, and if it's done en masse, a class action lawsuit may be the appropriate option.

What rubbish! In their announcement of the change, they tried to sell it as if us not being able to join a class action lawsuit was somehow better for us. This is all about them, and to claim otherwise is duplicitous.

I clicked the "I agree" button, but if I felt the need to sue their asses off I would do so and argue that I agreed to this under duress. They have hundreds of dollars worth of games that I have purchased. For Valve to make this change and say that I have to agree otherwise I lose all access to

The kickback is only half the equation. The total amount should, and I'm only speaking theoretically here, discourage future BS. The lawyers may get it all, but more importantly, the do-badders lose it.

If AT&T lost a class action suit over unlimited throttling I'd do a little dance even if I didn't get a dime.

AT&T has lost many, many class-action lawsuits, some in more recent history relating to 3G and their advertising of the same product as both 3G/4G. It never even hurts them, it just costs them a small chunk of cash which, of course, goes directly to the lawyers and nobody else. Valve doesn't have that kind of capital, so they would probably be ruined by any class action suit, no matter how frivolous and ridiculous the claims. What does Valve make that could really hurt anyone? Even if they make SeizureQ

I like how the anti-judiciary meme has spread to the point that lawsuits are always bad.

I've never said this, and I likely never will. However, I've never been involved in a 'good' lawsuit, mostly just picked up in class action sweeps. The explanatory documents have mostly been about nitnoid stuff, and the lawyers profit far more than the 'plaintiffs'. The businesses being sued have to make up the money in some way, as I see it, so it tends to make anything I subsequently buy from the company a touch more expensive to pay for the lawyers.

what is the right answer then? No one makes money on class action lawsuits expect lawyers so what benefit are they to the people that suffer? I believe in the rule of law, but corporate lawsuits are a broken system where the guilty don't go to jail.

I sent an email to sales@steam.com that bounced back and then I forwarded to webmaster@steam.com

I told them that I would not give up my rights as an american to have a jury of my peers, and since I notified them of that I would then accept the altered terms of the EULA based on that statement.

They did not respond before I clicked it.

I don't think they should be able to steal my money if I do not agree (by not allowing me to play the games I purchase if I do not agree) so I figure in the unlikely event that this EULA would ever matter, I could at least hope for a sympathetic judge when I explained how drunk I was when I came up with this plan.//toddles off to get another beer.

Now I'm just imagining the day the poor schmuck who's Steam Tunnel Operations' webmaster is going to have tomorrow, starting with that e-mail, a few followups from other Slashdotters, and topped off by a heaping helping of spam.

I just restarted Steam and saw this (again - had already RTFA and commented). It of course popped up saying "the EULA and Privacy Policy have changed, please read and agree (if you disagree, you cannot continue)". Then it showed me the new EULA.

Or rather, it tried to. The text box was blank. I clicked through before I thought to grab a screenshot, otherwise I'd have one hell of a technicality should I ever want to sue them.

I'm sure a whole mess of people have seen that Erin Brockovich movie about the mother turned legal aid who took on the faceless megacorp PG&E with a class action and won, giving everyone who watched the film a rosy view of the process? I mean why would Valve dare remove such an amazing system unless they're they scum of the earth right?!

Yeah except that class actions aren't usually like that. Very rarely do they ever benefit the actual people wronged. It's a good way for the lawyers to make some cash th

It did cost Erin quite a lot of time and effort which is why many people think she is a national heroine and not at all that wosshername actress who played her in a movie based on what she did.
If you do not stand up and speak for yourself who else is supposed to do it?

This attitude reminds me of this "You are about to be fired" speach V broadcast and that didn't make it into the movie. For shame!

I never implied they were supposed to be a wonderful revenue source for claimants, but that they rarely actually benefit the people who are in need of help as a result of the action which caused the class action. That is, unless you're one of the few people who first initiated the class action and get on the plaintiff list. Many people don't know that once you've gone into the class action, your ability to file your own lawsuit pretty much goes up in smoke. Attorneys will pull in their millions in winnings,

Most class action suits are scams anyway. Just today I received notice of one that I'm included in being filed against Netflix for alleged privacy violations. The lawyers are seeking $9 million. I won't list the whole breakdown of the proposed settlement, but the lawyers are keeping $2.25 million (not including expenses), while the plaintiffs get a whopping $30,000 to split between however many thousand there end up being.

If Valve screws you over, you can still sue them as an individual, this just lim

I won't list the whole breakdown of the proposed settlement, but the lawyers are keeping $2.25 million (not including expenses), while the plaintiffs get a whopping $30,000 to split between however many thousand there end up being.

In this specific instance, the six named plantiffs are getting $5,000 each. Everyone else is getting exactly nothing.

Good point. So, the attorneys in this suit are effectively removing the rights of everyone in the "class" to sue over this issue in exchange for absolutely nothing. Further, they emailed me the notice, but in order to opt out I need to send a letter to a post office box in Minnesota. This information is not listed on the page the email links to, rather I had to search a moderately lengthy FAQ to find it.

Valve is doing their customers a service by including this in the EULA.

The EULA can require that you give up your first born to be eaten by rabid weasels. It doesn't mean it's legal or that you have to actually do it. They've reduced EULA's to the level of a joke. The only reason they matter is most can't aford the lawyers to fight them!

I'm annoyed at valve for this (door-closing, even if it's actually not enforceable) earns a black mark in my book. Ultimately however, I don't think I give a damn. Valve would have to really start spiraling down the Evil Drain for me to actually care about suing them, much less joining a class-action lawsuit against them. There's also the bit about paying the arbitration fees (yes, I read the fine print go away) that tells me they're doing this more in a CYA move than because they've decided to be evil. The

Steam just made me update and click through the agreement. I figure it isn't valid in court considering the only way to continue playing the games you purchased was to agree to new terms, but it's still bullshit we have to wait until someone tests the law.

It doesn't matter if it actually benefits the consumer. The companies doing this are playing dirty by limiting the users rights to use the legal system. They haven't given us a choice in the matter, they've decided that whats in their best interest is also in ours. I find that hard to believe.

I've boycotted Sony for doing the same thing with the PS3, after shenanigans before of removing Linux from the PS3 and taking other things away from the customer. So what am I supposed to do in this case?

If the EULA changes in such as way as to become unacceptable, you can't just "leave" Steam without some sort of sacrifice for what you've already bought, as most (but not all) of the games use executables which incorporate a wrapper requiring Steam to launch and authenticate anyway in order to run. I suppose you can still leave of course, you just have to find cracks. And I doubt when Steam appears on Linux that cracks will be particularly easy to find (when's the las

If you live in Canada, the ruling is not binding. In Ontario for example, you're protected under the CPA(Consumer Protection act 2002). [gov.on.ca] This law, ensures that no company may remove, or attempt to strip away your legal rights to sue, or force you into binding arbitration via contract, ToS, or EULA.

The beauty, though, is that an illegal contract term means nothing. I'm pretty sure this contract term means nothing. It could say I agree to give them my firstborn, it doesn't mean I'm required to, nor that the REST of the contract is non-binding.

The same as any, and all, contracts. Previously, the SSA claimed that I could only sue them in their home jurisdiction. I'm sure the EU would have had something to say about that and, given the OTHER change